Q: Why is Amnesty International calling for the former president’s arrest? And why now?A: The group says Mr. Bush’s visit to Surrey, B.C., next Friday to attend an economic summit is the perfect chance to nab him for events during the CIA’s secret detention program between 2002-2009 which allegedly include “torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading-treatment and enforced disappearances.” Canada is “obligated” to act, said Susan Lee, Amnesty’s Americas Director. “A failure by Canada to take action during his visit would violate the UN Convention against torture and demonstrate contempt for fundamental human rights.” Greater urgency comes since the U.S. hasn’t acknowledged the crimes, added Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International Canada. This is the first time Amnesty has been so specific in a call for a Canadian visit, he said. “George Bush is not a sitting president anymore … He’s also not coming for official UN meetings, he doesn’t have any kind of diplomatic immunity.” On Sept. 21, Amnesty submitted an “extensive legal brief” to the government, backed up by “thousands of pages” of documents.

Related

Q: Does Canada really have the power to arrest him?A: It does, though there would be a”a lot of hurdles to overcome” for a successful prosecution in Canada, said Nicole LaViolette, a University of Ottawa professor who teaches international law. “Internally, we have the law to do it. Police, prosecutors, tribunals would all have jurisdiction under Canadian law, which is the only way they can act,” she said. Canada’s criminal code has been amended to give us jurisdiction over international crimes like war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The accusation against Mr. Bush that he ordered torture, however, would apply to a whole separate convention called the UN Convention Against Torture, which Canada has ratified and which imposes an obligation to act, Prof. LaViolette said. “Canada clearly has an obligation to prosecute or extradite someone who is believed to have violated the torture conventions. If Canada doesn’t do that, what are the penalties they might face? Zero, because one of the weaker parts of the international legal system is obviously enforcement of those obligations.” Adds Dan Bousfield, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario. “In international law, there’s a difference between being forced to act and able to act,” he said. “We’re not directly responsible, and as far as I know there’s no outstanding warrant for his arrest abroad.”

Q: Would Canada actually arrest Mr. Bush?A: “Politically it’d be suicide,” said Peter Ferguson, a professor of American politics at Western. “A U.S. president is not going to sit in an [international] prison. It would be a military action. They’d go for a diplomatic response but only for so long — 24 hours or less.” There’s no closer friend to the U.S. than Canada, said Alan Dowd, an Indianapolis-based fellow with the Fraser Institute who specializes in security issues. “Were it to happen, it would have a terrible, chilling effect on U.S.-Canada cooperation.” A fresh Conservative majority government won’t help the cause, added Prof. Bousfield. Legally, Mr. Bush would likely be protected anyway with state immunity since he acted in the context of his job when the alleged ordering of torture occurred, Prof. LaViolette said. In 2000, Belgium authorities arrested the former minister of foreign affairs for the Congo and accused him of international crimes. He pleaded state immunity and, when the case eventually made it to the International Criminal Court in 2002, it was dismissed: The court sided with the former foreign minister. “I would suspect then that we’re on slightly shaky ground pursuing someone who was head of state at the time of these events,” she said. “But it’s all new territory…”

Q: What does the government have to say about it?A: Amnesty International has yet to hear anything from the Canadian government, Mr. Neve said. Immigration and Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney leapt into the conversation Wednesday, saying in an emailed statement Amnesty International “cherry picks cases to publicize based on ideology. This kind of stunt helps explain why so many respected human rights advocates have abandoned Amnesty International.” Mr. Kenney, who has sparred with Amnesty before, went on to question why it did not seek a court order barring Cuban leader Fidel Castro who, according to the group engaged in “arbitrary arrests, detention, and criminal prosecution,” as well as “unfair sentences, harassment and intimidation of critics,” and use of the death penalty for individuals “trying to flee the island,” Mr. Kenney said. A spokesperson for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the RCMP is responsible for war crimes investigations, and anyone with a complaint should take it to them.

Q: What does all this say about Amnesty International? A: Some would say it has delegitimized it, although other prominent human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights have also called for an investigation into Mr. Bush. But there has indeed been a growing chorus speaking out against Amnesty, quite loudly after the group came under fire in February, 2010, for its relationship with former Guantanamo Bay detainee and jihadist Moazzam Begg. Salman Rushdie accused the group of “moral bankruptcy” and said it had done “incalculable damage” to its reputation for the collaboration. Author Christopher Hitchens pilloried the group’s “degeneration and politicization.” Amnesty International since changed its mandate after 9/11 from one that primarily advocates for people imprisoned in undemocratic countries to one that takes on broader international human rights issues.